1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 117 of 2011 1 - Amit Vishwas S/o Amal Vishwas, aged about 25 years, occupation cultivation, resident of village – Radhakrishna Nagar, P.S. Balrampur, District – Surguja (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Surguja, District – Surguja (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Arun Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 03/01/2025 This appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/01/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, Sarguja, C.G. (for short ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No.519/2009 by which the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following manner - Conviction Sentence 1 U/s 458 of IPC R.I. 18 months and fine of Rs.500/- (In default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months) 2 U/s 382/34 of IPC R.I. 18 months and fine of Rs.500/- (In default of 2 payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months.) 3 U/s 324/34 of IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- (in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 6 months.) All the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell is that the complainant Govind Mandal lodged a report at Police Station – Balrampur to the effect that on 17/08/2009 in the night at 9:00 PM when the wife of the complainant Manmati was going to check the backside door of the house, she saw three persons standing near the almirah. It is alleged that the three unknown persons started committing marpeet with her. On hearing cries, the complainant rushed there and saw his wife lying on the floor. Two persons started committing marpeet with the complainant with weapons due to which he sustained injuries on his right hand, wrist, left shoulder, neck, cheek etc. and his wife also sustained injuries. The complainant and his wife somehow fled from there. It is alleged that one person namely Hanspati has been identified by the wife of the complainant but could not identify the rest of the accused persons. It is further alleged that the accused persons looted Rs.30,000/- from the almirah of the complainant. 3. Two accused persons i.e. appellant and Hanspati Sarkar were put on trial and the appellant was convicted as stated above. 4. On the basis of report lodged by the complainant, offence under Section 458, 394, 307/34 IPC has been registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Section 458, 382/34, 324/34, 394/34, 397/34, 307 of IPC. Learned trial Court on the basis of material ingredients available in the charge sheet framed charges under Section 458, 382/34, 324/34, 394/34, 397/34, 307 of IPC against the appellant and other accused persons. The accused persons denied charges and claimed to be tried. They pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Learned trial Court after completion of trial, on the basis of material and evidence available on record, acquitted the accused persons from offence under Section 394/34, 397/34 and 307 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the evidence and material available on record. Alternatively, he submits that the appellant has already served 10 months and 14 days out of 18 months of maximum sentence awarded to him. Therefore, in the event the appeal is dismissed, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the above submission and submits that from the material brought by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant is well merited and does not require any interference. Therefore, looking to the overt act, no leniency should be granted. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The complainant Govind Mandal (PW5) has categorically deposed the manner in which the incident had occurred. He stated that he knows the appellant and other co-accused Hanspati Sarkar. Prior to the incident, they used to come to buy chicken from his poultry farm. On the date of incident i.e. 17/08/2009, his wife had gone to temple. When she came back, she broke the fast and they ate food. Then he was watching T.V. He asked his wife to bring water and watch the back side of house. When she went to backside of the house with torch, she started shouting, upon which the complainant went there and found that his wife was lying on the floor. Two persons attacked on him and one person namely Hanspati Sarkar attacked on him with iron rod. He was inclined to assault on his neck but he held it with his right hand and received severe injuries on his wrist. The other person assaulted him with knife on his face, cheek and left shoulder. He could not identify the other person, however, he had seen him properly and after seeing the appellant in the doc, he admitted that he is the same person who has assaulted him. He further deposed that accused persons attacked upon him in order to kill him and his wife Manmati also received injuries. He further stated that Rs.30,000/- was stolen from the almira. He lodged report in Annexure P/1 and admitted his signature on it. He further goes on to narrate the same story during investigation. Similar is the statement of his wife / victim Manmati (PW6). 10. Memorandum seizure witness Neelratna Majumdar (PW8) also deposed that out of looted amount, Rs.9,000/- has remained and remaining amount has been 4 expended. The same was recovered and even the knife was also recovered. 11. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, does not require any interference. Therefore, conviction of the appellants is upheld. 12. This leads to the question as to what should be the punishment to be imposed upon the appellant. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 18 months. Admittedly, the appellant has remained in jail for about 10 months and 14 days. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has any previous criminal record and during the period he was on bail, he was involved in any other crime. The incident had occurred on 17/08/2009. During trial he was on bail and after conviction, his sentence was also suspended by this Court on 07/02/2011 and it does not appear that he has misused the liberty. 13. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount and default sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is not disturbed. 14. Records of the learned trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent to it. Consequence to follow. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.01.08 16:51:34 +0530